London Terror Attack: Politics - Page 7

Originally posted by sammi joAnd what is sad is when someone so much as mentions the possibility of a false flag situation, or state involvement in terrorism, there is a universal condemnation, cries of "conspiracy whacko" and all the knees go jerking as if under the control of some remote puppetmaster. The story of that warning that Netanyahu received from the Israeli Embassy has not been refuted. If this story is B.S., then why haven't the rebuttals been published? The news organizations de-linked and buried that story soon after the bombings. Why? Is Scotland Yard looking into this one? Whoever gives a warning of an impending terrorist attack that actually occurs, usually tends to know something about that attack, and should be considered suspicious by law enforcement. Right?

Originally posted by giantI don't get what motive they could have to do it. If anything, it seems like it hurts them and demonstrates the failure of their policies.

Yet, it gives them a carte blanche to do whatever they want to do in order to 'protect the nation' - increase military spending, up the rhetoric on Iran, introduce other legislation Ã* la The Patriot Act as well as numerous other things that they would have a tough time doing in times of relative peace and quiet, and all of this because the public, frightened by the awful scenes of terror, will buy it and not oppose it falsely believing that it's for their own good.

Originally posted by steve666Could it be because the story is ludicrous?

I am not discounting that either, but until I see verified proof that this story was a mistake or a miscommunication, then it remains high on the list of 'suspicious' circumstances. You cannot automatically assign (this) story to the realms of "ludicrous" just because it happens to involve a nation that cannot be associated with the commission of terrorism due to political (in)correctness.

Numerous stories in the news have a high ludicrosity (is there such a word?) content. But if this one is so absurd, why was it published on numerous mainstream websites on the morning of the bombings, including no less than three Israeli mainstream news sites? So far, nobody has discounted the veracity of this incident, apart from altering the timeline a little (perhaps due to the 'oops' factor?); instead the story has been quietly brushed aside.

What is the deal that offends some people so severely, when Israel is mentioned is mentioned in connection with the execution of terrorist acts? Considering that a number of Israeli governments, past and present, have employed terrorism in a number of ways for a number of purposes, should we always ignore the possibility of their involvement in the London bombings? If there is clear proof that an Islamic group did it, then so be it...lock the scum up for life. If there is clear proof that the Israelis did it, will it take another 50 years for the public to find out? Don't forget that the motto of the Mossad is "By way of deception, thou shalt do War". Don't they ever live up to that?

Lets stay open minded, and hope the London police do their job unhindered by directives from ......

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Originally posted by sammi joBut if this one is so absurd, why was it published on numerous mainstream websites on the morning of the bombings, including no less than three Israeli mainstream news sites? So far, nobody has discounted the veracity of this incident, apart from altering the timeline a little (perhaps due to the 'oops' factor?); instead the story has been quietly brushed aside.

The story was started by an anonymous source, it was denied by the Israelis, and the British police said they had no forewarning.

according to the paper, Mossad officials informed British security authorities that the explosive material used in the Tel Aviv attack on Mikes Place pub was apparently also utilized to stage the series of bombings in London on Thursday. Moreover, the Mossad office in London received advance notice about the attacks, but only six minutes before the first blast, the paper reports. As a result, it was impossible to take any action to prevent the blasts.

They reached us too late for us to do something about it, a Mossad source is quoted as saying.

and...

Quote:

it was denied by the Israelis,

For the Mossad to admit that they did have a forewarning is mighty bizarre kind of denial.

IsraelNN.com) Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.

The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address an economic summit.

Then there is this timeline:

Quote:

Given the new sequence of events we are presented with, the Israelis' claim that Finance Minister Netanyahu received a warning after the first explosion makes sense -- that is, if their denial that they received a warning before the blasts can be believed.

In denying widespread reports that Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a warning of the London terrorist attacks "minutes before" they occurred, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom claims that "After the first explosion, our finance minister received a request not to go anywhere."

The problem with this explanation is that it was only after the third explosion that London police realized they were in the midst of a terrorist attack. Up until that point, authorities thought they were dealing with a series of accidents caused by a power surge, as this timeline from the Australian Herald-Sun makes clear:

8.49am (GMT): An incident on the train line between Liverpool Street and Aldgate is reported to British Transport Police.

9.15am: Media reports emergency services called to London's Liverpool Street station after an explosion.

9.24am: Police say the incident was possibly caused by a collision between two trains, a power cut or a power cable exploding. Police report "walking wounded".

9.33am: Passengers told that all underground train services are being suspended because of a power fault across the network.

10.14am: A witness says that a bus has been ripped apart in an explosion in central London.

10.21am: Scotland Yard reports "multiple explosions".

10.23am: Police confirm an explosion on a bus in Tavistock Place.

10.25am: The BBC's Andrew Marr, with Prime Minister Tony Blair in Scotland, says the PM is "still unsure" whether the explosions are a terrorist attack.

If Netanyahu was told a terrorist attack was underway after the first explosion which everyone, including the police, thought was due to a power surge then thats a lot more than the victims of the subsequent explosions were told as they rode the Tube to their doom. Which means the Foreign Ministers explanation Netanyahu was told to stay in his hotel room after the first explosion, rather than show up at the Israeli economic conference at a hotel near Liverpool station is entirely consistent with the claim that he was tipped off to what was really going on, while the rest of the city stumbled into disaster and, in some cases, death.

At least someone is paying attention.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Originally posted by sammi joWhoever gives a warning of an impending terrorist attack that actually occurs, usually tends to know something about that attack, and should be considered suspicious by law enforcement. Right?

I don't think so. It could well be that Scotland Yard received an anonymus call from inside the british islamistic scene by one of their connections or agents that they have heard that an attack is in action, but they don't know exactly how, where and who.

I don't see any conspiracy beside the obvious conspiracy going on there, namely that militant and islamistic people, and not islamic ones like a lot of people here have described them without noticing their latent islamophobia expressed therein, have set up small bombs in trains and a bus and detonated them either with a timer or a mobile-phone-call.

In their eyes and according to their ideology they are doing something good, retaliating or revenging the death of muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan with the possible and wished sideeffect that it could convince the british public to pressurize their government to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. In order to further comfort their conscious, militant islamists define the western people, as being equal to polytheists of the ancient times, and that the violent death of them is not seen as a sin by God, but even as a good deed.

What western politicians, espescially american ones are doing, is exaggerating the threath of islamistic terror and trying to get as much political, military, economic gain out of it as possible.

But that's to be expected.

The reason why especially middle-eastern-muslims have a problem to uncompromisingly condemn islamistic militancy and islamistic terror, is not only because part of their societies are already islamistic due to wahabitic-financed mosques, but espescially because they rightfully feel wronged by the west for decades and sum up the death of their civilians due to direct or indirect western policy, and see the compared to that miniscule death of western civilians at the hand of islamistic militants as a small retaliation.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

It's already established that the train-explosions happened all within seconds, and it's also already established that the people in charge of public security knew right from the start that it was a terrorist-attack and issued the theory of a power-surge only in order to prevent a panic, in order to make the work for the ambulances easier.

Nightcrawler

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

Originally posted by NightcrawlerIt's already established that the train-explosions happened all within seconds, and it's also already established that the people in charge of public security knew right from the start that it was a terrorist-attack and issued the theory of a power-surge only in order to prevent a panic, in order to make the work for the ambulances easier.

Nightcrawler

You silly goose --- nothing could be further from the truth! My contacts within the SETI-Mossad alliance tell me that all London transit workers are now being retrained to prevent just this sort of covert faux pax.

In the event of future terrorist attacks -- to prevent any confusion -- they will run though the tube stations screaming "THEY'RE BOMBING THE TRAINS! WE'RE ALLLLL GOONNNNNAAAA DIEEEEE!!!!".

Just to make sure everyone "understands" what's going on, you see.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Originally posted by sammi joNonsense? Stop digging a hole, please, before you embarrass yourself further. :

You patronising delusional person. You have succeeded in making me furious, thanks. A few bombs last week only just failed to do that. Don't try and tell me what the dead deserve because I'm pretty sure it's not your well meant insight-(bollocks).

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

I enjoyed the little diversion into Christian terrorism in the US, but to bring it back to the events in London:

* the IRA (who are Catholic and therefore Christian terrorists) conducted long bombing campaigns here for years.

* the main government response then was to introduce shoddy laws, infringe human rights (found guilty at the european court of human rights) and lock up lots of innocent people for the best years of their lives after toruring false confessions out of them and then pay them lots of money later on in compensation after their ridiculously shoddy convictions were overturned. Let's see if they do any better this time.

* I seem to recall at several undercover agents infiltrating the IRA as well as turning ex-members over to become informers (I'd slightly saddened the Wikipedia has nothing under the topic of Supergrass, except the band of the same name). Obviously this is different from 'false flag' operations but is another shade of grey to think about *and* provides a valid way for the goverment to know more than they let on if you are one of those people that worships the government like a missing father figure.

* Also, no one seems to have mentioned the small rash of Mosque firebombings that followed the explosions.

Terrorist acts? I'd say so. Probably those pesky Christians at it again. Actually, in honesty these are probably more Racist inspired and those racists would probably be Christian by default rather than shining examples of the faith. Funny how you make those small distinctions when you are not trying to damn half the globe in a sweeping statement that de-humanises people and makes their deaths easier to contemplate. Which is exactly what these fire-bombers, and too many people in this thread have been doing.

Originally posted by stupider...likeafoxFunny how you make those small distinctions when you are not trying to damn half the globe in a sweeping statement that de-humanises people and makes their deaths easier to contemplate. Which is exactly what these fire-bombers, and too many people in this thread have been doing.

Don't forget, also, that if we want to find a conspiracy/relationship/coverup/shady dealing, we will find a it. It's as simple as counting from one (4 mb h264) to two (2.3 mb h264).

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox....(who are Catholic and therefore Christian terrorists)

They are not Christian terrorists, they are 'Christians' who practice terrorism.

One more time, there is no denomination that sanctions terrorism. In order to bolt the term 'Christian' in front of 'terrorist' you logically need to find a denomination that includes this in a list of approved practices. Otherwise it is, by definition, abberant behavior -- not Christian behavior.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Originally posted by giantObviously not all christians believe this because there are christian terrorists justify their acts through christianity. There are christian terrorists who justify their acts of terrorism through christian beliefs......

Yes, and there are 'Scientists' who believe the Earth is giant Enchilada and Aliens fly in and out of the center, that doesn't make them scientific. Christ didn't say "Blessed are the bombmakers"......

..but you're right, I'll shut up on this -- heck, I shouldn't be posting mid-week anyway.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Originally posted by dmzThey are not Christian terrorists, they are 'Christians' who practice terrorism.

One more time, there is no denomination that sanctions terrorism. In order to bolt the term 'Christian' in front of 'terrorist' you logically need to find a denomination that includes this in a list of approved practices. Otherwise it is, by definition, abberant behavior -- not Christian behavior.

Exactly. Terrorism is a tactic, and you cant fight a war against a tactic. People need to acknowledge the fact that we are at war against a strand of radical Islam.

Originally posted by Alex LondonYou patronising delusional person. You have succeeded in making me furious, thanks. A few bombs last week only just failed to do that. Don't try and tell me what the dead deserve because I'm pretty sure it's not your well meant insight-(bollocks).

If you prefer a half-baked investigation, where those responsible are directed to ignore aspects of the incident that don't map neatly onto a pre-ordained theory that demonizes a certain section of the community, then that is your prerogative. After the 9-11 attacks, we here in the USA had to endure the most pathetic, emasculated and inadequate excuse for an "investigation", and even that debacle was refused by the administration for a year and a half after the attacks. I sincerely hope that the Brits don't have to put up with such a disgusting exhibition of misdirection, obfuscation, balking and even blatant censorship. The only things I have suggested in all my posts is that it is not impossible (possible) that parties other than maniacal Muslims could be involved. You are almost reacting as if I am the one who set the bombs.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Oh, coincidence here... anti-terrorist "exercises" involving 1000 people in the London Underground were going on at the same time the bombs went off. How very damned convenient...just like what happened on the morning of 9-11, when Cheney was directing 'ant-terrorism' exercises and wargames that confused Air Traffic controllers into not knowing which aircraft radar returns were real, and which were not.http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover070905a.htm

Someone tell me this story is fake.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Originally posted by dmzThey are not Christian terrorists, they are 'Christians' who practice terrorism.

One more time, there is no denomination that sanctions terrorism. In order to bolt the term 'Christian' in front of 'terrorist' you logically need to find a denomination that includes this in a list of approved practices. Otherwise it is, by definition, abberant behavior -- not Christian behavior.

Originally posted by Alex LondonWhere did I ever say I wanted a half-baked anything? You're the one coming out with half-baked assertions. I'm not demonising anyone except the people who did the bombing.

Same here. The difference being, as regards the perps, you've made your mind up already.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Originally posted by Alex LondonCome to London, let me buy you a pint of whatever you fancy. Then you won't have to tell me what to think or what I should think. Peace sister. I'm taking the mod meds.Apologies to you and Groverat.xx

I love London and I know it very well....I was there recently for much of June.

Mine's a Guinness......

thx.. xxx

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Originally posted by Gene CleanYet, it gives them a carte blanche to do whatever they want to do in order to 'protect the nation' - increase military spending, up the rhetoric on Iran, introduce other legislation Ã* la The Patriot Act as well as numerous other things that they would have a tough time doing in times of relative peace and quiet, and all of this because the public, frightened by the awful scenes of terror, will buy it and not oppose it falsely believing that it's for their own good.

No, it just makes their policies look like failures.
Bush, et al, have had 4 years to squash them and they have failed. To us Americans it looks like he hasnt done what it takes to beat them.
Our own borders are still porous and how many terrorists have crossed both our Southern and Northern borders (no thanks to Canada)?

Bush can ask for whatever he wants, but he doesnt have carte blanche anymore because his approval rating is in the tank.

Originally posted by sammi joI am not discounting that either, but until I see verified proof that this story was a mistake or a miscommunication, then it remains high on the list of 'suspicious' circumstances. You cannot automatically assign (this) story to the realms of "ludicrous" just because it happens to involve a nation that cannot be associated with the commission of terrorism due to political (in)correctness.

Numerous stories in the news have a high ludicrosity (is there such a word?) content. But if this one is so absurd, why was it published on numerous mainstream websites on the morning of the bombings, including no less than three Israeli mainstream news sites? So far, nobody has discounted the veracity of this incident, apart from altering the timeline a little (perhaps due to the 'oops' factor?); instead the story has been quietly brushed aside.

What is the deal that offends some people so severely, when Israel is mentioned is mentioned in connection with the execution of terrorist acts? Considering that a number of Israeli governments, past and present, have employed terrorism in a number of ways for a number of purposes, should we always ignore the possibility of their involvement in the London bombings? If there is clear proof that an Islamic group did it, then so be it...lock the scum up for life. If there is clear proof that the Israelis did it, will it take another 50 years for the public to find out? Don't forget that the motto of the Mossad is "By way of deception, thou shalt do War". Don't they ever live up to that?

Lets stay open minded, and hope the London police do their job unhindered by directives from ......

From?
Innocent English civilians were killed. If any Government had anything to do with it there is no way to keep it a secret, and no way Britain wouldn't react.

Originally posted by steve666
[B]From?
Innocent English civilians were killed. If any Government had anything to do with it there is no way to keep it a secret, and no way Britain wouldn't react.

The story is hooey.

If the story is hooey, as of yet no refutation has been forthcoming. I hope that when the investigation is done and dusted, the answers are plain, obvious and proven with no reasonable doubt...unlike the 9-11 attacks where contradictions, impossibilities unlikelihoods, bizarre coincidences, ugly censorship, and worse, abound.

The latest from the police is that it looks as if some young muslim men from N. England might have been the bombers. Incidentally, if they were suicide bombers, as some reports suggest, why would they be carrying bombs equipped with timing devices?

Lets remain skeptical until the end of the court hearings, which, lets hope, leave us with no doubt whatsover as who the culprits really were.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Some U.S. law-enforcement officers based in London, NEWSWEEK has learned, have become extremely concerned about evidence regarding possible active Al Qaeda plots to attack targets in Britain. According to a U.S. government official, fears of terror attacks have prompted FBI agents based in the U.S. Embassy in London to avoid traveling on London's popular underground railway (or tube) system, which is used daily by millions of commuters. While embassy-based officers of the U.S. Secret Service, Immigration and Customs bureaus and the CIA still are believed to use the underground to go about their business, FBI agents have been known to turn up late to crosstown meetings because they insist on using taxis in London's traffic-choked business center._

Originally posted by sammi joIf the story is hooey, as of yet no refutation has been forthcoming. I hope that when the investigation is done and dusted, the answers are plain, obvious and proven with no reasonable doubt...unlike the 9-11 attacks where contradictions, impossibilities unlikelihoods, bizarre coincidences, ugly censorship, and worse, abound.

The latest from the police is that it looks as if some young muslim men from N. England might have been the bombers. Incidentally, if they were suicide bombers, as some reports suggest, why would they be carrying bombs equipped with timing devices?

Lets remain skeptical until the end of the court hearings, which, lets hope, leave us with no doubt whatsover as who the culprits really were.

SJ: Isn't it simply more likely that the provenance of some of the stories you're relying on is either dubious or, at worst, simply wrong? Reporters reporting what other reporters reported about what other reporters reported about... And so on.

As for the timing devices: 1) carrying them means there's a better chance of them being "delivered" than leaving them. You no doubt know that it is possible for a bag left behind on a tube to be found and removed. 2) Carrying them AND having a timer ensures that the explosions will be coordinated.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Originally posted by steve666
[B]No, it just makes their policies look like failures.
Bush, et al, have had 4 years to squash them and they have failed. To us Americans it looks like he hasnt done what it takes to beat them.

That's the point, isn't it? They haven't been able to beat them. That's why they would (theoretically) need more attacks and fuss to justify yet another round of X billion dollars to 'protect our nations interests' in Y country.

Quote:

Our own borders are still porous, and how many terrorists have crossed both our Southern and Northern borders (no thanks to Canada)?

Well I don't know that. Certainly the executive branch of the government in charge of our borders is responsible for controlling who comes in and goes out?

Quote:

Bush can ask for whatever he wants, but he doesnt have carte blanche anymore because his approval rating is in the tank.

Of course he doesn't, but my point was that he needs a carte blanche, and these kinds of attacks could very well be a chance to get that carte blanche.

Of course, this is just a theory and in no way am I claiming that it's true. But there's a possibility, however slim and absurd it may look like.

Originally posted by sammi joIf the story is hooey, as of yet no refutation has been forthcoming. I hope that when the investigation is done and dusted, the answers are plain, obvious and proven with no reasonable doubt...unlike the 9-11 attacks where contradictions, impossibilities unlikelihoods, bizarre coincidences, ugly censorship, and worse, abound.

The latest from the police is that it looks as if some young muslim men from N. England might have been the bombers. Incidentally, if they were suicide bombers, as some reports suggest, why would they be carrying bombs equipped with timing devices?

Lets remain skeptical until the end of the court hearings, which, lets hope, leave us with no doubt whatsover as who the culprits really were.

They had timing devices most likely because they wanted all the bombs to go off at once.

Originally posted by steve666They had timing devices most likely because they wanted all the bombs to go off at once.

Thinking out loud here, using my imagination and common sense: to build a bomb with an electronic timing device is probably way more hazardous and involved, compared to building a bomb with a manual triggering mechanism, (in a backback)...which can only fired by the bomber reaching inside and physically doing something to complete a circuit to make the electrical connection that fires the detonator, which sets off the main charge.

To achieve synchronized explosions, the only thing the terrorists would have had to have do was to synchronize their (cheap digital watches?) a half hour or so before boarding each train, carefully keep track of the time and and at the pre-ordained hour, fire the bombs. If these guys were not 'professionals' (?), then a simple approach like that makes more "sense"...that is, if any "sense" can be attached to all this.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow